Capturing Tolkien's Vision vs. A Literal Interpretation

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by Black Breathalizer
Nice post, Wayfarer. You weren't your usual wild-eyed, stark-raving mad self for a change. I would agree that there is no way that any film (regardless of who produces and directs it) will ever capture the total magic of Tolkien's masterpiece.

But I guess I'm just easier to please that you are. I have spent years looking at Tolkien art and saying things like, "oh NO, Frodo doesn't look like THAT" or "you've gotta be kidding me, THAT is a ringwraith?" I also stood in line for the premiere of Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings with excitement and high hopes only to leave the theatre disappointed and very embarrassed at the effort that was made.

The bottom line is that I can separate the books from the films and admire and enjoy the differences between the two without having to feel I'm dividing my loyalties. Whatever your feelings about the films, I truly believe they reflect a deep love and respect for Tolkien's work.

I appreciate the genuine seriousness that Peter Jackson has given this project. From the art design, to the incredible casting, to the scripts, there has been a passion for "getting it right." You may not agree with all (or any) of the production's decisions, but I believe the decisions were made with a careful eye toward what was "true to Tolkien." I honestly believe that RETURN OF THE KING will be THE BEST movie in THE BEST movie trilogy I've ever had the privilege of enjoying during my lifetime.

After 361 times saying "Jackson has improved Tolkien", and preaching about how Jackson was a perfect (at any rate far above adequate) adaptation of Tolkien's books, now all of a sudden you're a Separatist? Wow...